Skip to main content

About your Search

20110701
20110731
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)
. we live in a worldwide economy. the competition is no longer down the block. it's china, india and places like that. just listening to the discussion this morning, listening to the different points of view, you expand the different points of view, put them in a polarized poisonous, toxic atmosphere, congress, and it's governing. we can't govern ourselves. is this country ungovernable? it's the question in our minds and the minds of a lot of young people. where are we going as a nation. they go to washington and behave like clowns. that's a huge, huge problem. >> mike's point is spot on. even pat is saying we have a different philosophy on governing. when obama was elected he made promises. after that, he said he would close guantanamo bay. then he saw the information. after the elections, democrats said we would not extend the bush tax cuts, we did it. with larger deal around don't ask don't tell. i think it's important for politicians and those elected to want to govern and be bigger than the moment. remember, peter asked the most important question at the beginning, the real
they are in the range of 2.5, whereas merging markets are more in the range of 6.5, some of them such as india and china getting higher marks, so we are facing a turnaround which is very uneven with country's leading the charge and not those that were historic leading the charge and others advanced economies that are lagging behind in a way given the status of development. in the midst of that, we have clearly the two categories different issues to address but if we are to provide service and guidance, advice and recommendations and if and when necessary and if asked support. those are on the one hand the issues of sovereign debt and concerns all advanced economies ranging from japan to the united states, but clearly with a focus as you write about it as we know with a focus on the year autozone and in particular a country such as greece. on the other hand, when we look at emerging markets we have in some corners the risk of overheating, and we obviously have the risk of inflation as well, and sometimes particularly in the low-income countries the risk of imported completion that results from a high pri
for business and goes around the world as i have done to china and india and africa, and because there are suggestions you should cancel a trip like that, i think it is talking britain and down, and i think you should be better than that. in 2003, a committee warned about the media. the investigation the prime minister has announced, will we go that far back and related to understand what the committee region really understand what the committee ignored. >> one thing they are looking at is the relationship between the media and politics. >> if they had known newt information, and would he have gone ahead with the appointment? >> i explain this last week. if i have been told the proper information andy coulson knew about hacking, i would have fired him. >> could i congratulate the prime minister on taking the lead when new evidence came out to establishing an independence inquiry. having gotten that independence, can he say he will affirm with the economic tsunami democrats one thing we can do is lead the inquiry to answer difficult questions, and we focus on issues around jobs. >
and they are going to do it at a lower cost. we have to compete with india, china, japan and indonesia and viet na -- vietnam. if we don't, other businesses will compete abroad. a lot of those jobs that those positions were held by african americans. we need to retool the american work force and let me tell you why there are numbers that are disproportionate with african americans. i don't want people doing what they did in the last 400 years. they say because they don't want to work and we have heard that unfortunately over the years. the only reason we know what the numbers are are because those are the individuals who are out seeking work and that's how we know that the unemployment numbers are what theyr but keep in mind, nobody probably thinks about this, every time you read about a state laying off workers , a municipality laying off firefighters or police officers or if you find any government agency laying off, it means that the number of african americans who are unemployed will rise and the reason for that is african americans disproportionately seek work in the government. we have done
business. our capital can go anywhere in the world, india, china, vietnam, canada, mexico. it can go anywhere. and when you start raising taxes on our job creators and you scratch your head and wonder why they are leaving, it is pretty obvious. we see it in a smammer level in our states where we see more regulation and more taxes in our states like california. all of a sudden, businesses pack up and go to another state that has better rules and regulations and taxes. that happens on a broader scale right here in america. you raise the cost of business, you kill jobs in america. in the end, does it hurt these businesses? no. the people that are hurt are our constituents, our families, our people in our districts that are yes or noing for opportunities, yes or no -- yearning for a job. >> war will it take -- mr. griffin: what will it take tore folks to wobbeder why businesses are leaving the country. they want to point the finger to someone else, some third party, some external cause. maybe we should think about the fact that the policies adopted by the federal government have an impac
or will the leadership pass to china or india or to some other place? this is the great issue confronting the people of the united states, and it's the great issue confronting us here in congress as well. let's get our fiscal house in order. thank you, mr. speaker, and i yield back the balance of my time. the speaker pro tempore: the gentleman from new jersey yields back the balance of his time. the chair recognizes the gentleman from illinois, mr. quigley, for five minutes. mr. quigley: thank you, mr. speaker. mr. speaker, an american president once wrote a letter to the senate majority leader urging him to raise the debt ceiling. the president wrote, "the consequences of a serious prospect of default for the united states is impossible to predict and awesome to contemplate. denegation of the full credit of the united states would have substantial impact on the domestic financial markets and on the value of the dollar in exchange markets." that president's name was ronald reagan and the year was 1983. he closes under the senate majority leader howard baker saying, the risks, the costs, the incalcul
of the constitution that will result to the states india, she should be able to make that claim, and so we told the supreme court take this case even though we lost, so they took the case and in the appointed a private lawyer to argue with the government would have argued in terms of her not having a legal standing, the right to bring the case and then after hearing the oral arguments they wrote an opinion that said that that private lawyer wasn't right for their service, vice versa, but at the end of the day after hearing the argument. >> think about the prosecutor in the perry mason series that he confessed error. there would be no novels, no nothing. [laughter] >> sometimes the courts and the car in the tory area and follow the latter in the supreme court issued but not the spirit, and one of my favorites was in the plaintiffs' court in texas they have some good places to make a living and the court had said the highlight line for punitive damage is $9 of the punitive for every 1 dollar a factual or compensatory damages. so a person who never earned more than maybe a thousand dollars a year
of those tax cuts in china or in india or job creation in many other places other than here. and the balance part of this amendment requires the passage of a balanced budget constitutional amendment that would require a supermajority to raise any new revenue or close any wasteful tax loopholes. so in other words, you don't have to have a supermajority to decide where and what you're going to wind up spending but you have to have a supermajority in order to raise any revenue or close an egregious tax loophole. one that may have no economic purpose, may be completely outdated, may be a sweetheart deal that got into the tax code over o the course of the years, but you still have to get a supermajority to get rid of that. everybody here knows how hard it is to get 60 votes. a lot of the business in the united states senate has been caught up by the eternal filibuster. every single nomination, every single small piece of legislation that comes to the floor of the senate, everything requires a motion to proceed which requires 60 votes, which is effectively a filibuster each time.
Search Results 0 to 8 of about 9 (some duplicates have been removed)